Meet the Candidates: Willard Mitt Romney

I’ve gotten into my galloshes and waders, which can only mean one thing: time to wade through the muck that is Mitt Romney! (Don’t worry, I’ll get to McCain and Giulianni, but hazmat suits were on backorder.)

If you read the last issue, you know that I rate the candidates five ways:

Chance at Nomination (Out of 10)
Electability (Out of 10)
Main Strength
Main Weakness
Good or Bad (The higher the better)

So, let’s get to it! Introducing Mitt Romney, the Stormin’ Mormon! (With intense apologies to Jackson and Nathan)Chance at Nomination: 2. Seriously, does anyone think that he has a chance? A, he’s Mormon, and a lot of evangelicals still think that the Book of Mormon was inspired by the devil (as opposed to the Book of Revelation, which was inspired by mushrooms). B, he pretty much had to turn his politics around to reach the Republican Party platform. When he was running for the governorship, he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. Now he’s as reactionary as Orrin Hatch. I’m probably over estimating their intelligence, but I’d like to think that Republican voters are smart enough to see through such a transparent flip-flop.

Electability: 5. Much better than his chance at the nomination because he’s moderate, which will help him much more in the general election than the primaries, but also because once they have a choice between a Mormon who ran on a social conservative platform and a woman who doesn’t know her place or an uppity n****r, they’ll pick the Mormon. On the other hand, if Democrats have one percent of the brains god gave them, they’ll attack Mitt’s flip-flopping with ten times the force that the Republicans swift-boated Kerry with.

Main Strength: He’s one of only two candidates not currently in congress. He’ll have more time (of course, congress doesn’t exactly tax candidates’ time much), but moreover, he doesn’t have a voting record to scrutinize. At the moment, his Wikipedia entry doesn’t even have a “Political Views” section.

Main Weakness: Did you read the first section? In the eyes of Evangelicals, he worships Satan and wants to allow gay polygamous bestiality and force good Christian women to have abortions. And he’s from Boston.

Good or Bad: 5. On the one hand, he has a fairly moderate political history. On the other (much more important) hand, he has a history of changing his opinions to suit the political climate. Moreover, since he hasn’t been in congress (he lost miserably to Ted Kennedy in 1994), we have no clue what he really feels. Finally, he’s a businessman. The last three businessmen we elected (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Herbert Hoover) drove the country into the ground. Turns out government run as a business doesn’t run so well. I don’t want to take any more chances. Elect another lawyer, or a soldier. Even a peanut farmer would be better.